Hacker News Reader

Comment by webwielder2 | Hacker News Reader

I would vote for any candidate who made this a pillar of their campaign. I wish we cared about important things :-(

I would too, and I believe the solution is to drastically change people's over-consumerists life-styles. I live a 'minimalist' life-style and feel finally happy, my environmental footprint is probably lower than 5% of the average, the planet could easily host 10 billions people like this, but can't sustain 2 billions over-consumerists

I like your approach, but have two small caveats: if you're living in a regular house or apartment in the Western world, with electricity, plumbing, heating etc., perhaps using public transportation several times a week, you might produce much less carbon than your fellow citizens, but probably not less than the average human. With current sources of energy, this is unsustainable for 4, let alone 10 billion people.

The other thing is: consumerism must go, but it's no easy feat. So many people in 1st world countries work in jobs that make zero sense in a post-consumerist society. Advertising is a huge industry. Even many tech giants like the FAANGs would become largely superfluous. There will have to be a gentle transition, not a "drastic" one, or 2019 politics will end up looking like a fairytale in hindsight.

> if you're living in a regular house or apartment in the Western world, with electricity, plumbing, heating etc., perhaps using public transportation several times a week, you might produce much less carbon than your fellow citizens, but probably not less than the average human

A large part of this is due to current practices surrounding energy and material goods production though, as you point out.

For example, the UK has an intensity of approx 300g CO2 emitted per kWh on the national grid. We also have diesel trains. A lot of the material goods we produce (including things like, say, the metal body of said trains) are carbon intensive in their manufacture.

But it's not impossible to change that.

It's not easy to fight consumerism, all governments goals are even to keep it high, sadly. But there must be new rules, with climate/environment in first role

I live in France, electricity isn't too dirty to produce (nuclear), and I can't say I abuse it, I don't heat a lot, I like to sleep in the cold, maybe 3 months a year, and I have no air-conditioning of course, this is a nonsense.

I use a bike for everything, so my main CO2 footprint might be from the vegetables/fruits I buy, they are still quite locally produced (France/Spain/Italy/Morocco for clementines sometimes) (I mean I wouldn't buy a pineapple/mango from another continent, this too is an absolute nonsense)

Well yes but also, reducing migration to high-income countries would be an incredibly cheap and easy way to halt the march towards global over-consumption. I've not yet seen a single decent argument from someone that's pro-migration explaining how shifting millions of people from lower-income economies into high-consumption Europe is somehow eco-friendly: not one!

Have you calculated how much additional pollution is directly caused by immigration to Europe and North America? If you haven't but you assume that the amount is substantial aren't you just spreading bullshit?

It just amazes me that people seem able to be pro-migration and pro-environment and seriously believe there is no contradiction between the two. Those people that move are going to need somewhere to live, work, go to school, shop, etc etc. All of that requires constrution, which is massively carbon intensive. Less migration means less of that construction, and also avoids the negative impacts on both the source and the destination. Far better to have people with their own people rather than forced to the other side of the world. And we get to maintain the distinctive cultures of the world.

I love diversity: that's why I think we should stop trying to destroy it.

Being “pro environment” doesn’t mean you believe every other concern must be sacrificed at the alter of the environment at every opportunity.

Those darned people looking for better life opportunities, security and happiness by moving to the developed world.

Calling such behavior "forced" is so inconsiderate. It blows my mind that you are trying to blame people for trying to find better lives. Should a lady in a brazilian favela not have washing machines? Should people not experience and use electric light or air travel? I also assume you are from the west which makes your position extremely arrogant as well.

I am very afraid of what the environmentalist movenment is turning into and would not be surprised to see major violent eco-terrorist events in the future. Makes me ashamed to support green policies.

So inconsiderate.

In other words, you have no idea how much or how little global warming emigration from the Thirld World causes, yet you assume the amount to be substantial?

Why should everyone have to change to live like you so that we can optimize for making more and more shitloads of people? As far as I'm concerned my consumption ends with me, the real problem is that everyone else insists on having exponential numbers of kids.

a caterpillar

The worst kind of candidate. You're think you're voting for a caterpillar but post-elections it reveals itself to be a butterfly. And not just any butterfly, but a migratory species that flies to Russia in the winter.

no butterfly that made this a pillar of their campaign would be flying to russia

If people believed that, you'd have 10 candidates like that. Thus is the nature of populism.

Tom Steyer

I personally met Andrew Yang in 2018 and tried to get his campaign to be about two things: UBI and the Environment.

I wanted him to embrace at least the Carbon Tax and Dividend bill.

But they didn’t listen. So Yang isn’t an environmental candidate. I even care less about the CO2 than destruction of ecosystems: corals, insects, birds, fish, kelp forests and etc.

Bernard Sanders is also a good candidate if only for the fact that he would make a beeline for environmental change the second he's elected. He's been fighting for this his whole working life.

Yep. He's the real deal, with a track record to prove it.

Why do you believe Sanders would prioritize environmental concerns? His focus seems to be on economic and health care, as judged by his history in Congress and his presidential campaign.

It seems that only one candidate (Inslee) put climate front and center.

Doesn't Yang support this?

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/carbon-fee-dividend/

I think Yang is a pretty strong environmental candidate considering he also supports removing subsidies on fossil fuels and meat, nuclear energy, funding renewables, electric vehicles, reforestation, etc.

Yeah he put it on his site and never talked about it publicly.

Which is why he is mostly a one-issue candidate. He could have been about the great issues of our time, and probably polled at least double what he is now. Many people who may not embrace UBI care about the environment.

I was the one who built yang2020.app and painted the giant Yang mural in Brooklyn. Privately I was trying to exhort his campaign to turn “how are you going to pay for it” into an opportunity to talk about Pigovian taxes and how he was going to avoid the fate of Macron and the yellow vest movement by redistributing the money back to the people. That may have led to his campaign putting a mention of it on his site, because they later wrote back and said “good news, it’s on the site”.

I think Yang will be an amazing candidate, just not for 2020. Ah, well Biden and Bernie are pretty old, so there will be other opportunities to run without primarying them.

Actually, what I really believe is that there should be a third party that has people like Yang and Tulsi run. Not left, not right - forward. I got the domain name for this party: “rational.party”. :)

Neoliberal party?

That's interesting to hear your experiences with Yang.

I certainly have my own critiques of his campaign team's strategy. Unfortunately I think Yang has failed to establish legitimacy with some of the left, due mostly to flaws in his narrative and framing of certain issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com